Posted on 07/11/2007 3:40:02 AM PDT by liberallarry
It has been one of the central claims of those who challenge the idea that human activities are to blame for global warming. The planet's climate has long fluctuated, say the climate sceptics, and current warming is just part of that natural cycle - the result of variation in the sun's output and not carbon dioxide emissions.
But a new analysis of data on the sun's output in the last 25 years of the 20th century has firmly put the notion to rest. The data shows that even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
I'd have to say that polarization on any issue involving serious money and power is inevitable. But still, this Administration has done what it has done.
The article said that the "new analysis is designed to counter the main alternative scientific argument put forward by the programme - that solar activity may be to blame for global warming." This is political; we get the assertion first and then we get data to back up the assertion. In science we look at the data first and then we look where the data points.
The supporting evidence is presented in the paper
That was the impression that I'd gotten too, but apparently it's neither been published nor been through the peer review. All the links to date refer to a study that is "to be published". Please let me know when it's available so you and I can review it together.
Burnt by recent discoveries that global warming is caused in large part by the sun, the left scurried around frantically trying to find a scientist who would betray the ethics of his/her profession. Having found one, they rushed to plaster his statements all over their media.
An experiment was designed to test a particular hypothesis and found that hypothesis wanting. As long as the methodology was good and the reporting honest that's a perfectly legitimate endeavor.
Consider Michaelson-Morley. It was thought at the time that an observer should see light traveling at different speeds depending on his, and the emitting source's, speed relative to the ether. The two scientists designed an experiment to test that...believing the hypothesis was correct. To their utter amazement they found it wasn't. They were so upset by the result they refused to accept it, repeating it over and over, always finding the same thing. They were honest and published what they'd found. It turned out their experiment was probably the most important in the history of science and resulted in the theory of relativity which overturned our most basic notions of space and time.
Your moniker has two words too many. Lose the first two.
The Royal Society's website shows a number of Lockwood's published papers and this one isn't there. The Royal Society is not yet able or willing to sell me this particular paper at any price.
Let's agree that the numbers have not been made public even if these are in fact Lockwood's conclusions. Let's also agree that we would not be adhering to the scientific method if we were to accept the conclusions without seeing the data.
AND Pluto - I read a couple of weeks ago that they also think Uranus is warming up. (Please - no "it must have been the tamales you ate yesterday" jokes!)
Interesting...and very surprising. An abstract implies a complete paper, or so I've always thought.
Let's agree that the numbers have not been made public even if these are in fact Lockwood's conclusions. Let's also agree that we would not be adhering to the scientific method if we were to accept the conclusions without seeing the data
I'll go further. I, as a layman, won't accept the conclusions until I've seen a discussion among peers.
“Yes.. and no. There will be immediate effects, but there will be delayed effects as well. Some of the sun’s short wave radiation hits the earth land surfaces, warms them, which in turn re-emits long wave (infrared) radiation back upward, exciting various types of molecules in the earth’s atmosphere, causing immediate warming effects. But most of the sun’s short wave radiation hit the oceans, directly warming them. This type of warming is stored for decades, and influence the magnitude of ocean oscillations. These oscillations release heat stored in the oceans, and contribute much later to the temperature in the atmosphere.”
So would it be logical to assume the reverse? That if the Sun`s radiation has been going down as the Guardian article states, that the effects of that decline on our climate would not be felt until much later?
Go to post #30 and click on the first link. You'll be taken to a very interesting page which will allow you to download the complete article - free of charge. I think it's complete because it's 14 pages long (pdf). Haven't had a chance to review it yet.
I don't know how I missed this. I remember clicking on this link and getting an abstract. The link, in my browser, was red, indicating that I had indeed visited it before.
“does enron ring a bell?”
still mired condescension and an expert propagandist.
my apologies. i thought it might get back to the author and it did. thank you.
“does enron ring a bell?”
mired in condescension and an expert propagandist. (the two definitely go hand in hand.)
Please provide evidence that supports this nonsense. You're accepting claims from charlatans with an agenda.
Not idiots? Most of them are. They are just liberal idiots that couldn’t find a real job so stayed in academia because of job security.
All they are doing now is keeping their grant money flowing. A lot of these are the same idiots that were drumming global cooling and the next ice age to us in the 1970’s.
So why are Al Gore, Robert Kennedy and a host of international socialists doing just that? Why are they denying the evidence, denying a platform to their opponents, and insisting that 20 and 30 foot sea rises are coming - when even the worst case UN-led scenario allows only 30 inches of sea-level rise. In 100 years.
Suppose, just suppose that their wildest dreams come true - that they turn the US economy back to 1990-levels of energy usage (thus exceeding the damage the Great Depression did by turning 25% of Americans OUT OF WORK!) ...
So what? They would succeed in destroying the world’s economy for 1/2 of ONE DEGREE of temperature change. Now - what is your goal? 1/2 of ONE DEGREE? Or destroying the American economy (and the rest of the capitalistic world with it)?
Also most serious AGW scientists say there is no change in cosmic ray flux, see here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42 for example.
Maybe I am missing something obvious in the paper cog?
“i, as a layman, won’t accept the conclusions until i’ve seen a discussion among peers.”
brilliant!!! absolutely brilliant!!! suitable material for membership in the democrat party comrades!!!
LOL. I remember them very well. They were among the leaders in pushing the Global Warming crap and spending millions in Washington pushing for a CO2 traiding system. (Very good for the Natural Gas market)
Oh. here's more here on how they spent million during Clinton to push the Kyoto BS And Here's why Enron really wanted Al Gore to be president
Just do a Google on Eneron + CO2. If nothing else, Enron was always VERY politically correct, and if their house of cards had not collapsed, they would have been Masters of the Universe with all of the BS we have going on now. Ken Lay would have been French kissing Madonna on the stage the other day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.